Artist, Singapore

Menu

Saturday, November 1, 2014

In the past, Singaporean political leaders have perpetuated this idea
that since we are an Asian society, Western values of freedom,
democracy and human rights are inapplicable to us. According to this “Asian Values” argument,
since we are a Chinese society, we adopt a Confucian social ethic,
which is fundamentally different and opposed to those Western liberal
ideas.

Lee Kuan Yew famously made this statement: “With few exceptions,
democracy has not brought good government to new developing
countries…What Asians value may not necessarily be what Americans or
Europeans value. Westerners value the freedoms and liberties of the
individual. As an Asian of Chinese cultural background, my values are
for a government which is honest, effective and efficient.” He did so in
a speech entitled ‘Democracy, Human Rights and the Realities’, in
Tokyo, Nov 10, 1992.

To some extent this has influenced the outlook of many Singaporeans,
who may approach liberal ideas with caution and believe that they cannot
(or should not) take root here. However, I insist that such an outlook
is mistaken. I have many arguments against this “Asian Values
discourse’, which includes how this may be a convenient excuse to
justify authoritarianism.

However, in this article, I seek to show that liberal values of
freedom are not exclusively Western, but are actually present
universally in many cultures and histories. Since many people think that
Chinese philosophy is necessarily anti-liberal or at least not
conducive to it, I will use examples from Chinese history to show why
there is no good reason for Asian societies to be against liberalism
also.

Liberalism

John Locke (image – Wikimedia Commons)

Let me first clarify what I mean by liberalism. By this I refer to
the body of thought that places a premium on human freedom and
individualism. In short, liberals believe that an individual person is
sovereign, and deserves equal freedom with everyone else in society.
John Locke, considered as the father of classical liberalism, said that
individuals are born with natural rights to life, liberty and property.

The government’s job is thus to protect these rights, nothing more.
Liberalism implies restrictions on the power of government because it
fears the concentration of political power. Power corrupts; so liberals
want to limit government and simultaneously protect an individual’s
private sphere of action, which the government should not be invading.
In such a society, an individual can pursue his own plans, his own
goals, his own dreams and ideas of the good life, so long he remains
peaceful and not violate the equal rights of other people. Any action
that is peaceful will be legal and allowed.

The word ‘liberal’ can mean many things; in fact I do not refer to
the use of the word ‘liberal’ in America. A ‘liberal’ in the US is a
left wing social democrat who believes in economic redistribution and
progressive taxation. I am using the word liberal in the original sense;
it is classical liberalism, not modern social liberalism. Classical
liberals are also called libertarians, so as to make this distinction.

Lao Tzu worked out the view that the individual and his happiness was
the key unit of society. (This is individualism). If social
institutions hampered the individual’s flowering and his happiness, then
those institutions should be reduced or abolished altogether. To the
individualist Lao Tzu, government, with its “laws and regulations more
numerous than the hairs of an ox,” was a vicious oppressor of the
individual, and “more to be feared than fierce tigers.”
Government, in sum, must be limited to the smallest possible minimum;
“inaction” became the watchword for Lao Tzu, since only inaction of
government can permit the individual to flourish and achieve happiness.
This stems from the famous principle of “wu wei”, understood roughly as
“non-action” or “non-intervention”. Any intervention by government, he
declared, would be counterproductive, and would lead to confusion and
turmoil.

Confucius, Tang Dynasty (image – Wikimedia Commons)

The first political economist to discern the systemic effects of
government intervention, Lao Tzu, after referring to the common
experience of mankind, came to his penetrating conclusion: “The more
artificial taboos and restrictions there are in the world, the more the
people are impoverished — The more that laws and regulations are given
prominence, the more thieves and robbers there will be.”

The worst of government interventions, according to Lao Tzu, was
heavy taxation and war. “The people hunger because theft superiors
consume an excess in taxation” and, “where armies have been stationed,
thorns and brambles grow. After a great war, harsh years of famine are
sure to follow.” The wisest course is to keep the government simple and
inactive, for then the world “stabilizes itself.”

As Lao Tzu put it: “Therefore, the Sage says: I take no action yet
the people transform themselves, I favor quiescence and the people right
themselves, I take no action and the people enrich themselves.”

In Murray Rothbard’s History of Economic Thought, it is said that:
“Taoist thought flourished for several centuries, culminating in the
most determinedly anarchistic thinker, Pao Ching-yen, who lived in the
early fourth century AD, and about whose life nothing is known.
Elaborating on Chuang-Tzu, Pao contrasted the idyllic ways of ancient
times that had had no rulers and no government with the misery inflicted
by the rulers of the current age. In the earliest days, wrote Pao,
“there were no rulers and no officials. [People] dug wells and drank,
tilled fields and ate. When the sun rose, they went to work; and when it
set, they rested. Placidly going their ways with no encumbrances, they
grandly achieved their own fulfilment.” In the stateless age, there was
no warfare and no disorder:

Where knights and hosts could not be assembled there was
no warfare afield — Ideas of using power for advantage had not yet
burgeoned. Disaster and disorder did not occur. Shields and spears were
not used; city walls and moats were not built — People munched their
food and disported themselves; they were carefree and contented.””

How about Confucianism then? Well, it is erroneous to see it through authoritarian lens. Roderick Long here in his excellent piece demonstrates how Confucianism is anti-authoritarian and non-coercive, and actually favours voluntarism and liberty.

Universal

In every civilization and culture, there are really two narratives:
one of freedom and liberty, the other of coercion, domination and
oppression. In Western societies and states there have been serious
regressions to totalitarianism and illegitimate coercion of people, and
even in non-western societies, there have been developments and
acceptances of individual liberty and constitutionally limited
government. Did you know that the first ever recorded word for “freedom” is “ama-gi”, an early Sumerian word?

How about Islamic culture and theology then? Surely Islam is
incompatible with liberalism, given all the authoritarianism we see
concentrated in Muslim countries? Once again there is nothing within
Islam that should forbid the peaceful pursuit of individual ends (which
is what liberalism espouses).
Mustafa Akyol, a Turkish journalist, has written numerous books which include “Islam Without Extremes: A Muslim Case for Liberty”. In an article on Huffpost,
his views were further explained and communicated; those interested
should read him carefully. What this shows me is that religion need not
(and should not) divide us, all religions can come together and affirm
the principle of liberty, which will in turn allow the peaceful pursuit
of various religious ends.
It is thus highly misleading to see one civilisation as having a
“monopoly on the ideas or the practice of liberty”. There is nothing
intrinsically Western or European of the philosophy of freedom and
individual liberty. The principle of individual liberty and its
restrictions on state power and promotion of civil liberties have always
been found in the histories of different civilisations. They were
gradually developed over time in different places – through the
perennial clash between tyranny and freedom – and came to greatest
fruition in the Enlightenment; that they first flourished most in the
West doesn’t make it an intrinsically Western notion.

So yes, as Singaporeans, there is no reason why we’re so Chinese and
Eastern (or whatever) that we can’t accept the common-sensical liberal
tenets of peace, voluntarism and freedom.